sue
===
>From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:44:34 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 )
id AA21579; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:44:31 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:44:31 PDT
From: John R. Helie
Message-Id: <9310130444.AA21579@igc.apc.org>
To: suev
Subject: HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS
Status: RO
Sue, FYI and post where appropriate.
John
/* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in igc:cn.research */
/* ---------- "HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS" ---------- */
CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM
INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT
Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly
Intractable Conflicts
Working Paper 93-27, July 20, 1993 [1]
HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS:
CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSES TO COLORADO'S AMENDMENT 2
By Joseph de Raismes
City Attorney
Boulder, Colorado
Let me first confess my biases. I am the City Attorney, so I
am representing the City of Boulder, which has an anti-
discrimination ordinance which was adopted in 1989. Also, the City
of Boulder is a plaintiff in litigation against Governor Romer and
the Attorney General, Gale Norton, attempting to invalidate
Amendment 2. So, I am not going to be very objective about
describing the proponents of Amendment 2 and you should probably
not expect me to be. My additional biases as the City Attorney have
to do with having spent three years as an attorney on the national
staff of the American Civil Liberties Union as well as five years
in the Attorney General's office, which was only a partial antidote
to my civil liberties biases.
On the other hand, one needs to recognize that there has been
an evolution in the thinking of civil libertarians in this country.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union, which firmly
advocated the rights of the Nazis to march in the streets of
Skokie, has been on record in the last two terms of the Supreme
Court as being in favor of hate-crime legislation and has attempted
to defend hate-crime legislation against First Amendment
challenges. So, civil libertarians in this country have moved from
a firm individualistic stance on First Amendment issues to looking
at societal consequences and wondering whether this is the kind of
society we all really want to live in.
Additional biases I have are linked to having been involved in
litigation, in legislation, and in mediation concerning abortion
demonstrations and anti-Persian Gulf War demonstrations. I am the
founder and godfather of the Community Mediation Service in the
City of Boulder, and at Harvard Law School I was a student of Roger
Fisher's. Also, I helped with the mediation of the "bubble zone"
involving abortion clinic demonstrations, which was first adopted
by the City of Boulder and more recently by the State of Colorado.
So, I come to this question, as to many questions, with a bias
toward mediation as a way of solving social problems.
But, I do not think this particular conflict over the rights
of gays and lesbians in our society is currently a conflict that
can be resolved by mediation. The mediation we did for the "bubble
zone" did not resolve that conflict, although politically it laid
the groundwork for an ordinance which has been quite successful in
at least mitigating some of the effects of that conflict on women
seeking abortions. So, I have enthusiasm for mediation as a process
and yet some battle scars and some cynicism about using mediation
to solve certain types of conflicts.
Also, we need to understand that the Amendment 2 conflict is
about sexuality. Because of this we need to give each other the
space to be crazy about sex--because we are. We are very crazy
about this subject. No matter what our orientation may be, we tend
to react very quickly.
We know sexual orientation is formed by approximately age six
and it tends to be extremely resistant to change. Expert witnesses
for both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Amendment 2
hearings all testified to this fact. It isn't known whether sexual
orientation is genetic or whether it is formed by socialization--
this may never be known. Experts testified that either thesis can
be disproved. Most likely, it is a multivalent phenomenon--a
confluence of both socialization and genetic factors. It may not be
very helpful to answer this question because it is not known what
would be done with the information. It may be more dangerous to
know.
There are at least three orientations: homosexual, bisexual,
and heterosexual. There are probably at least as many types of
homosexuality as there are of heterosexuality. Thus, this is an
area of great disagreement and complexity.
I was educated in the process of the trial as to the extremely
simplistic nature of the discussion on both sides of the question
of what it is that gives rise to a particular sexual orientation.
I was made aware, as a practicing heterosexual all my life, to the
real difficulties experienced by gays and lesbians who are
closeted, who have to go through the experience of what sometimes
is called "internalized homophobia." This is according to what is
called "gay affirmative therapy," where the person has to overcome
their own self-hatred. To do that one has to affirm sexual
identity, even though in that process, social and family conflicts
are created; there is pain on all sides. We need to understand the
pain of the person that is coming out or the one who is not--both
choices involve pain--but also the pain of the family, the pain of
friends, and the pain of society reacting to gay sexual-identity
affirmations such as gay rights parades. I believe in understanding
and compassion toward all sides.
Some of the background literature in the Amendment 2 case
involves the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
Psychiatric Association know as DSM-4. DSM-4 marks an important
diagnostic watershed because it no longer classifies homosexuality
as a disorder as did an older version, DSM-3. Until publication of
DSM-4, homosexuality had been considered a psychological disorder.
Now "disorder" is defined as a sexual orientation with which one is
uncomfortable, whether it be homosexuality or heterosexuality. If
one is uncomfortable, it is a problem; if one is comfortable, it is
not a problem according to the American Psychiatric Association.
However, this classification and diagnosis is not a universally
accepted view. It clearly points to a very political question.
This classification change coincided with a societal movement,
sometimes referred to by the religious right as "the gay agenda,"
toward more acceptance of--or the demand for more acceptance of--
homosexual lifestyles. Homosexuals held gay pride parades, kiss-
ins, and other gay rights actions. These activities have created a
reaction on the right, sometimes typified by Coloradans for Family
Values, the organization which spearheaded Amendment 2. This
organization talks about the "gay agenda" much as the nativists in
the late nineteenth century, sometimes called the "know-nothings,"
talked about the protocols of the elders of Zion--the supposed
documents by which the Zionist conspiracy was going to take over
the United States.
Paranoia exists on all sides in this issue. Recently I was
involved in negotiations among various local groups in preparation
for the preliminary injunction in the Amendment 2 case. We were to
decide whether the City of Boulder would defy Amendment 2, indicate
our willingness to abide by the judge's order, or indicate our
concern that absent an order, we might be prevented from enforcing
our anti-discrimination ordinance. During these negotiations I had
a very modest view into the internal conflicts that exist among
homosexuals in Boulder over what their political agenda ought to be
in light of the confusion and mutual accusations that have come out
since the passage of Amendment 2. It is very sad to see, not only
society in general, but friends and lovers parted as a result of
the political challenge created by the passage of Amendment 2.
Amendment 2 is deeply discriminatory. There is not a fair
debate about that. There may be some who will attempt to convince
us that Amendment 2 is an enactment of what are sometimes called
"special rights." That is, frankly, purely a canard. There is no
respectable intellectual argument to that effect. Amendment 2
states:
Neither the State of Colorado through its branches or
departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
municipalities or school districts shall enact, adopt, or
enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct,
practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be
the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have
or claim they need minority status, quota preferences,
protected status, or [and this is the important one] claim of
discrimination.
It is necessary to closely analyze this statement. The
Amendment states that no government in Colorado shall enact or
enforce any policy whereby any lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual may
be entitled to claim discrimination. This means that unlike a vast
number of other groups in our society, including heterosexuals (who
are not mentioned in the Amendment) and religious orientations,
homosexuals and bisexuals may not claim discrimination in Colorado
if Amendment 2 is sustained. Any other group, whether they be
majoritarian or minority, involved in any kind of ideological
struggle can claim discrimination based on their class. Unlike all
of those others, uniquely, homosexuals and bisexuals will be denied
that right if the Amendment is upheld. That is blatant
discrimination.
It is discrimination most obviously because of the error that
the Amendment 2 drafters made when they adopted it, which reveals
their agenda. Instead of saying there can't be any claim of
discrimination based on sexual orientation, which at least would
have presented a facade of neutrality, they said this particular
group may not claim discrimination. They overplayed their hand and
in the process they showed what their claim of "special rights" was
really about. More broadly, it states that gays and lesbians can be
denied access to the voting booth and can be fired arbitrarily
based on their orientation. One of the extremely important
implications of this is that someone with AIDs can be fired, not
because they have AIDs, but because they are homosexual. Of course,
the pay-off is that an employer will not have to pay health
insurance under a health insurance plan.
It is important to reveal this implication because there is a
lot of false consciousness surrounding this debate. Gays will not
feel free to speak or come out of the closet because in doing so
they will risk a legitimized discrimination that has been grafted
onto the State Constitution by Amendment 2. This is an obvious,
blatant violation of the First Amendment in addition to a violation
of Equal Protection.
Why did Amendment 2 happen? It happened because of prejudice
and as a backlash to the movement for gay rights. Our society was
able to be more, at least superficially, tolerant in an era when
gay rights were not as blatantly demanded and presented. Perhaps it
was hypocrisy; perhaps it was what Herbert Marcuse refers to as
"repressive tolerance"--keeping people in line so long as they do
not assert themselves too boldly. Ironically our society was
probably more tolerant before this process began. It may be more
tolerant, still, after the process is done. But in the mean time,
we are in a phase of struggle.
Amendment 2 also represents a backlash against affirmative
action, having nothing to do with gay rights. This fact was
indicated by polls after the election. The language in the
Amendment addressing "special rights" reflects an attitude among
white males and probably some white females--expressing a feeling
of being threatened by other groups which have claimed quota
status. These other groups have claimed affirmative action more
broadly, but a portion of the majority population feel that
homosexuals are another group that can potentially make that claim,
and that it is time to stop it. This backlash is typified by people
who are probably ideologically on the right but may have no
particular feelings about gay rights. The "special rights" theme
hit a nerve in that general ideological direction.
There is now also a backlash against the boycotts instituted
by some ill-advised actions in New York and from some probably
better-intentioned actions in Colorado. Now 51 percent of the
population is firmly in favor of continuing Amendment 2, with only
43 percent in favor of repeal as of January, 1993. Those numbers
continue to get worse for those who think Amendment 2 can be
repealed. The only solution in the short-term is to defeat
Amendment 2 in the courts. In the long-term, of course, one hopes
that these attitudes will continue to evolve and the reactivity
generated by the boycott will begin to fail and people will begin
to, perhaps, feel some economic consequences. But, those economic
consequences, frankly, are pretty hard to predict. Although I
understand fully, politically, why the boycott is happening, I
think that we all have to understand that it is a dubious utility
for deterring other states from adopting similar amendments.
The Coloradans for Family Values group was invited to Colorado
by the El Pomar Foundation which put $4 million into moving the
headquarters to Colorado Springs. There are now 53 rightist groups
who have established themselves in Colorado Springs--it is now
basically the center of the Christian right in the United States,
a shocking development in Colorado. Colorado has traditionally had
a tolerant view. That is evident when looking at our statutes in
the area of abortion rights prior to Roe vs. Wade. More recently
Colorado was the first state to adopt the "bubble statute." This is
not a state that could be fairly characterized as a "hate state."
Frankly, if Amendment 2 can pass with the kind of slick campaign
that it had last November in Colorado, it can pass anywhere in the
United States. We should all be very frightened about that.
The response to the campaign, the language about "hate state,"
"hate is not a family value," and the Equal Protection Coalition
were obviously not effective. The general falsehood of the issue of
"special rights" was not effectively refuted. The tie-in to
affirmative action was not thoroughly recognized. As a result the
family values cluster spoke to a certain sector of our society
about issues such as abortion rights, the rights of minorities in
our society, and many things about which some people are angry, but
which they don't usually express, especially to pollsters. We all
thought that Amendment 2 was going to fail until election day. All
these things were mobilized in a way which produced a bare
majority, but nonetheless, a majority on election day.
This relates in some ways to the history of Boulder's anti-
discrimination stance. In 1972 Boulder held its first gay rights
referendum which was in response to the city council passing a gay
rights ordinance. The ordinance was defeated in the referendum and
then subsequently, a gay council member, Tim Fuller, was recalled
and the mayor, Penfield Tate, was defeated at the next election.
Not coincidentally, Pen Tate was our first, and so far our last,
black council member and black mayor. A referendum passed in 1989
enacted Boulder's second ordinance. This was done in a very, very
low key way. There was, as is traditional in Boulder campaigns,
very little of the kind of emotional hyperbole that was present in
the Amendment 2 election. There was not the stirring of emotions as
there had been in 1972. As a result in 1984, it passed. It seems
that in a more rational, less-emotionally inflamed context, people
are willing to be tolerant. Once emotions, especially their
emotions about sexuality and affirmative action, are engaged, it
appears that there may be a different result. The key in all this
seems to be getting to a deeper part of our humanity, which is our
understanding of each other. How to do that is the challenge before
all of us as we try to figure a way out of the current impasse over
Amendment 2.
In terms of the case, we currently have a preliminary
injunction from Judge Bayless issued in February. We continue to
litigate that case and the Supreme Court will be arguing the case
on May 24, 1993. The discussions in local groups have been very
instructive for me. There is no monolithic gay agenda. There isn't
even a monolithic gay organization. There are as many organizations
as there are people at times. We have groups like BOND and BOLD;
there is also the Queer Nation group in Boulder. There are a number
of different groups with different ideas about how to pursue their
agendas. For some, they want to pursue confrontation in an effort
to express their outrage. It is a very difficult situation for
everyone and it is a testimony to people's ability to get along
that we have managed to keep this thing together as long as we have
without people splintering. But frankly, the notion of getting
the Queer Nation group in the same room with Colorado for Family
Values seems to be a very unhelpful way of thinking about how to
resolve this. So, although I do favor mediation as a technique for
bringing groups together, I suspect that it is somewhere in the
middle that it is going to have to come together--not on the
extremes.
We have one local case of sexual discrimination currently
pending, a very important one involving a firing that occurred just
before Amendment 2. This case is coming up for hearing soon and
will underscore the importance of dealing with this issue. We have
another case currently in discussion phases where the firing
occurred immediately after Amendment 2. Other than that, most of
our cases have been resolved by some form of mediation to a point
where the complaining parties were satisfied. But we need to
realize that people's jobs and their livelihood are at stake and we
need to understand how important that is in addition to their
issues of identity.
How could we handle these issues better in the future? We need
more concrete information about what is at stake. We need to
understand what sexual orientation is, when it comes about, and
that it is not a choice in the way in which Colorado for Family
Values thinks about it. It is not some form of mal-depravity, but
a part of human existence. Slogans and media campaigns are really
inimicable to the rational solution of such matters.
Also we need to realize fundamentally that our state
Constitution is too easy to amend. Alexis de Toqueville once said,
"Constitutions are made to protect the minority against the tyranny
of the majority." If a bare majority of Coloradans can enshrine
discrimination in our state constitution, we need to look at
whether that is a rational process for protecting minority rights.
I favor a two-third majority, because that is what it takes to
amend the federal constitution. We need to ask ourselves whether a
bill of rights should be so easy to change--whether it ought to be
so subject to the winds of prejudice in our society as Colorado's
Constitution now is.
____________________
[1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Joseph de
Raismes for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation
Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided
by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of
Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University,
or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict
Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail:
crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint
without permission.
>From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:45:16 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 )
id AA21668; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:16 PDT
From: John R. Helie
Message-Id: <9310130445.AA21668@igc.apc.org>
To: suev
Subject: THE MEDIA'S ROLE
Status: RO
More of the same
John
/* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in
igc:cn.research */ /* ---------- "THE MEDIA'S ROLE" ---------- */
CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM
INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT
Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly
Intractable Conflicts
Working Paper 93-28, July 20, 1993 [1]
THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT 2 CONTROVERSY
By Mike Booth
Reporter with The Denver Post
I'm a reporter with The Denver Post. I have covered a number
of different subjects for them but I've been covering Amendment 2
for about a year now. Before November we, like a lot of people,
thought Amendment 2 would fail and go away very quickly. Obviously
it didn't. Since November I have been covering Amendment 2 full-
time; I haven't been writing about anything else. People at the
paper often ask when I am going to get bored with it; so far I
haven't been the slightest bit bored. I am fascinated by all the
topics it involves.
If I have a personal bias in this issue it is in favor of as
much fair and accurate information as possible. That has been
sorely lacking from both sides throughout the entire debate,
especially from Colorado for Family Values. But both sides have
played a role in disseminating information that has hurt the
quality of the debate. It has been a very emotional conflict and
the need for accurate information is even more important in such a
conflict.
I don't know how many times in stories we have tried to
explain the dispute over "special rights" and the fact that
protection against discrimination itself is not a special right.
After the election I was getting a dozen calls a day from people
arguing with me about my coverage--usually from conservatives
saying that we were a mouthpiece for the gay groups and that we
weren't even trying to be unbiased in our coverage. But, "special
rights" kept coming up over and over again. People would call me
from an office where they were arguing about Amendment 2 and put me
on their speaker phone so I could explain it to groups of people.
Even after explaining it to people in person, they will often not
believe what you have said or simply misconstrue it.
The paper has been through a lot because of Amendment 2
issues, mostly consisting of attacks from the conservative side on
our coverage. We have lost a great number of subscriptions, by far
more subscriptions than on any other political issue that we have
ever written about because of people's perception of our coverage.
Most often, the perception is that we are a mouthpiece for gay
groups.
This reaction escalated with the boycott. That seemed to upset
people who normally would have never picked up the phone and called
the newspaper. It has upset people to a degree more than any other
political issue in Colorado. They seem very disturbed that people
were trying to attack their state and, ultimately, their jobs,
ironically exactly mirroring how gay and lesbians must feel about
their job security. The boycott seemed to threaten a lot of people
where they hadn't been threatened before.
Some of the tactics employed by both sides contributed to the
position that we are in now, which, according to the polls, seems
to be like before the election, perhaps going even further in the
direction favoring Amendment 2. No one seems to be willing to
change their mind. Particular tactics contribute to this impasse.
The term "Nazi" was used so frequently by both sides during the
debate that we got very tired of hearing it, and very tired of
trying to determine exactly what was meant when it was used.
Conservatives would say, "They are trying to create a police state
where no one can discriminate, where no one can make any choices on
anything." The Colorado Springs human rights ordinance that was
defeated was called a gestapo tactic because of the way that it
would have been enforced. The liberal side's first reaction is to
call Colorado for Family Values "Nazis" or "Fascists." Once this
sledgehammer word is used, there is no way to get beyond it. It is
the ultimate weapon because there is nothing worse in our history
than what the Nazis did. So this term implies a horror that is
unimaginable. How can you discuss a point after that?
Quoting the Bible is another tactic that is very difficult to
get around and stifles further debate. The group that promoted
Amendment 2 and many of their supporters believe that everything in
the Bible is literally true--this is a very fundamentalist point of
view. Therefore, in discussing an issue they always have an
alternative position in quoting the Bible and if the Bible says it
is true, there is no room for further discussion of the matter.
This is another tactic that should be kept out of future political
debates because it stifles genuine debate. Such people never allow
themselves to change their position because they have a document in
front of them that they consider to be the ultimate truth. They
will not move from that position because they think that doing so
would be a sin. So, it is very difficult to talk about anything
once people start quoting the Bible. The liberal groups and
moderate groups that were arguing Amendment 2 also used the Bible,
but they used it differently. They were willing to engage in a
theological debate about what exactly the Bible might mean in a
certain section. That debate cannot take place with people who are
on the far right side of the issue.
A fundamental thing that needs to change if we are to get
anywhere near mediation is for people who are on the liberal to
left side of this debate to strive to come to some kind of
understanding of the people who are in the middle, the right, and
the far right side of the middle. That seems to happen even less
frequently than it happens with the people on the right side of the
issue trying to understand the left-wing side. The right clearly
has its misconceptions about what gays are like, they have their
stereotypes, and to them it is all about sex. On the other hand,
there are people who fought against Amendment 2 and are still
fighting against Amendment 2, who think that everybody that voted
for Amendment 2 and advocated it is a card-carrying member of the
either the Christian Coalition or Colorado for Family Values. That
is simply not true; 810,00 people voted for it in Colorado--they
are not all members of these groups. We have to keep repeating that
over and over again if anybody wants to get beyond the present
impasse.
The philosophy that was espoused by Colorado for Family Values
reached deep into the mainstream of Colorado. That is why it
passed. It cut across economic and educational lines. The
demographic studies done from polls after the election show that it
cut across minority lines as well. The voting for this issue
crossed over any expectations of ideology or patterns that one can
think of, except perhaps, geographic ones. Denver, Boulder, Aspen,
and all of the ski counties except Grand County and a couple of
others here and there voted against Amendment 2. But everywhere
else in Colorado, the majority of people voted for it. Even in
places like Denver the vote against the Amendment was less than 60
percent.
To understand this means realizing that not everyone who voted
for Amendment 2 or has some problem with homosexuality comes at it
from a religious perspective. Many of the phone calls and
conversations at the paper are with people who say, "I'm not a
religious person." That is their first comment. Their second
comment and the comments that lead off from there indicate that
they have a gut reaction to homosexuality that prevents them from
being tolerant. There is this gut reaction, right or wrong, among
a large number of Americans. That is why movements like this are
spreading to other states. Some people have some flutter in their
gut when they think about homosexuality; it is just not
homosexuality, it is about sexuality in general. Americans have a
very difficult time talking about these issues. But when talking
about a minority view of sexuality and a sexuality that has been
criticized for centuries as homosexuality has been, it gets even
more difficult. That gut feeling will have to be addressed if there
is to be a rational mediation of the dispute.
Is homosexuality a choice, or is it genetics? Ultimately,
Joe's1 conclusion was that the answer may not be that important
right now. Even if it is a choice, what does that mean in terms of
discrimination? We don't allow discrimination against other
choices, such as religion. But there is another reason that the
answer can be important. It is not the most important issue right
now, because it is no where near being solved, but it can be
important in the future. I spent a lot of time in the last few
weeks talking to various religious groups, not fundamentalist
religious groups necessarily, but everyone from Presbyterian Church
USA which has a very strong liberal streak in it, to a lot of other
churches that vary greatly in their views on homosexuality. Many do
not consider themselves fundamentalists, but within their
congregations, there is great variance when they talk about
official church doctrine.
The Presbyterian Church for example, has had a running dispute
on this issue for several years. They considered a new report on
sexuality in America and the recommendations in that report which
advocate an end to discrimination against homosexuals and the
ordination of gay ministers before their General Assembly. These
recommendations were adopted and have been upheld. They ended
discrimination in the Presbyterian Church. One of the ministers
describing this issue focused on the fact that the difference
between choice and genetics can be very important to a certain
portion of the congregation that are uncertain about their beliefs
on the issue. They may want to be tolerant, but they still have
this gut reaction. If it was proven to them to a reasonable degree
that homosexuality is genetic and that there is no way to change
it, many problems would be solved for the Presbyterian Church.
Their view is that if it is genetic, if it is inherited, it cannot
be a sin. Therefore, it would take away the disapproval that is
currently attached to homosexuality in their church. If
homosexuality is no longer a sin then they can get beyond that
issue. Thus, there will be another group that is perhaps willing to
come to a more rational conclusion to this debate. So the genetics
versus choice issue, although it is not the burning issue right
now, is potentially a very important question for a lot of
mainstream religions in America.
Another common view fueling the impasse in the Amendment 2
debate is the assumption that what happened in Colorado was part of
a conspiracy by the religious right manipulated through lines
leading directly to Pat Robertson's group in Virginia. This
conspiracy context, more adamantly proclaimed immediately after the
election than now, portrayed the Amendment as part of a carefully
orchestrated plan. There is certainly collaboration among the
groups. Colorado for Family Values agrees with most, if not all,
of what Pat Robertson says on television everyday, along with other
groups in Idaho and Oregon. Colorado for Family Values did
coordinate some of the legal wording of Amendment 2 with the
National Legal Foundation, which used to be a branch of Pat
Robertson's group and is still very conservative. Also, they had
support from groups around the nation for everything from the way
that they wrote their literature to the way that they ran the
grassroots campaign. But, I'm not sure if that's any different
from a liberal in one part of the country consulting with the ACLU
on how to write a piece of legislation or another group in
Washington, People for the American Way, about how to get their
issue passed and how to get support from mainstream voters. But,
with the amount of reporting that I have done on it, I don't see it
as necessarily more of a conspiracy than has occurred among other
groups that have fought for political change in different parts of
the United States. There are eight states now (Minnesota just
passed such protection) and more than one hundred cities that have
passed gay rights protection. This equally could be considered a
conspiracy among liberals to pass gay rights legislation around the
country. But it is not seen that way; it is seen as a political
movement, as an evolution of values. Over time we may see that is
simply what has been happening with the religious groups on the
right-wing side of the issue. So, the conspiracy issue should also
be set aside in order for people to get a better understanding of
what exactly did happen and, therefore, how to change what
happened.
In the matter of responsibility, gay activists and their
supporters in Colorado could also have done more with respect to a
measure that we haven't mentioned--Greg Walta's compromise. Walta
is a Colorado Springs attorney who has been very active in civil
rights issues. He wrote a compromise measure. Walta called it a
compromise; Colorado for Family Values called it a capitulation.
Many people had trouble with the compromise measure because Walta
specifically mentioned the term "special rights." Those unsure of
the measure felt that in trying to achieve a compromise this loaded
term should not be used. What Walta was trying to do was to diffuse
"special rights." In the compromise he pointed out that there is
no such thing as special rights and there is no such thing as job
quotas for gays right now and it is unlikely that there ever will
be. Walta also addressed the issue of discrimination and the
extension of discrimination protection throughout the state. He was
hoping to get this measure on the 1993 ballot in order to end this
controversy. Walta ran into trouble for a number of reasons and it
looks like now he might not have been able to get it on the 1993
ballot because of the way the legislature is interpreting Amendment
1 and some other laws.
But, even if he had been able to get it on the ballot, he
faced a lot of opposition from groups in the liberal community in
Boulder, Denver, and Aspen and especially the gay activist
community. This opposition stemmed from the fact that he had
written some exceptions and exemptions into the law for who would
not be covered by the discrimination clauses. Even though most of
the laws I have ever seen do include exempted groups such as
religious organizations, small apartment buildings or two-family
homes, etc., there was an immediate protest on the exemptions. Many
gay activists adopted the stance, "We can't compromise on civil
rights; the minute you start to compromise you are giving up
something." Well, the fact is that people have always compromised
about civil rights in order to get things passed. Every civil
rights bill that has been passed is some form of a compromise
because that is the way things work when things have to be voted
on. Walta since has withdrawn the measure, and has said that he
will not come back with it until 1994, if ever. There was a
responsibility in the liberal community and the gay community to
take a closer look at the measure drawn up by Walta and to give it
more consideration, to spend more time talking about it, and to
more carefully consider what kind of compromises they were willing
to make in order to have this situation go away.
________________________
[1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Mike
Booth for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation
Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided
by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of
Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University,
or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict
Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail:
crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint
without permission.
[2] See CRC Working Paper #93-27 by Joe de Raismes.
>From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:45:53 1993
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 )
id AA21750; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:50 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:50 PDT
From: John R. Helie
Message-Id: <9310130445.AA21750@igc.apc.org>
To: suev
Subject: CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE
Status: RO
Even more
/* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in igc:cn.research */
/* ---------- "CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE " ---------- */
CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM
INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT
Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly
Intractable Conflicts
Working Paper 93-29, July 20, 1993 [1]
CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT 2
By Ann Sebren
Boulder Organization for Non-Discrimination (BOND)
I'm with the Boulder Organization for Non-Discrimination
(BOND). I'm a lesbian member of that organization. I would like to
say that as a lesbian I could not and do not speak for the gay and
lesbian community because we are an incredibly diverse group of
people. We cut across many different lines of the population from
class and gender to economic status and religion. There is no way
that I could have one voice for that extraordinarily disparate
community so I speak as a white, post-Protestant Christian, middle-
class, Southern, lesbian academic. That will give you some clue as
to why I say some of the things that I do.
This conflict is multi-faceted, multi-layered and multi-
colored; it can be seen many different ways depending how it is
presented and the social conditions framing it. That it is why it
is so incredibly complex. I will outline some of the dimensions
that frame this conflict.
Historically, probably the most important dimension of the
conflict over homosexuality in this culture has been religious;
this particular aspect should not be underestimated. The
orientation about homosexuality in this culture has religious
roots. People who might say that they are opposed to Amendment 2
because they have a gut reaction to homosexuality and not because
they are really religious, have a consciousness that has been
passed down through the ages because of a particular religious
orientation whether one is practicing religion or not. So the
religious dimension is a core aspect of this whole conflict. To do
any kind of mediation, this particular facet of the conflict will
have to be dealt with.
What this implies are questions and beliefs about ultimate
reality: Is there a God? What is God's role in the world? What is
God's role in this nation? How is the world supposed to be ordered?
How should this culture be ordered? Who decides that? How is that
justified? From a religious orientation, often times the conflict
becomes one of interpretation of particularly relevant Biblical
verses. People often have a very compelling reason not to go
further in examining their beliefs about certain topics--they
believe they will go to hell. So, the fact that people have that
particular practicing religious orientation is another aspect of
the conflict that is going to have to be considered. Also, the
religious aspect involves the fact that no longer is it just about
relevant Biblical verses; it is a question about what role
Christianity is going to play in this culture, in this government,
and in this nation. That is not an irrelevant question to this
issue over the rights of gay and lesbian people. This cannot be
overlooked.
There is also a political dimension to the conflict. It is
really about the issue of citizenship. We are at a time when we, as
a society, are trying to sort out which citizens are going to be
granted the right to privacy, which citizens are going to be
granted the right to access to the judicial system to make a case
on their own behalf, and which citizens are going to be given the
right to equal opportunity for jobs, housing, and public
accommodations. Who gets to decide these issues of citizenship is
also at stake.
Thirdly, there is a psychological dimension. Partially this
conflict revolves around our beliefs about what it means to be
human. We have an orientation by the majority of the people that to
be human is to be heterosexual; therefore, to not be heterosexual
is to be less than human. That is a fundamental belief that has to
be examined when we talk about this conflict. Again it comes down
to who is going to decide that in this culture. Who is going to
decide what it means to be fully and acceptably human and how we
are going to think, feel, and respond to each other on that basis?
The other psychological dimension is the way we emotionally respond
to the issue of sexuality. This response surrounds all of our very
human fears and joys and the way we engage in being intimate.
There is also the dimension of diversity. The gay and lesbian
community is a very diverse group of people. There is absolutely no
consensus in our own community about what we need to do in this
crisis. We are still in a state of crisis this many months after
the election; so we are scrambling individually and as a community
to figure out how we need to take care of ourselves and what we
need to do to protect ourselves. Consequently, we have many
different groups with many different perspectives on how this
conflict should be approached in the gay and lesbian community.
There are many differences in the heterosexual community opposing
Amendment 2 and they, as well, differ in their opinions on how this
conflict should be approached.
I had the dubious privilege of going to the Colorado for
Family Values seminar held here in Boulder at Bethany Church. What
I discovered at that event was that there is a real distinction
between those who are leading and those who are listening and
following. That seems to indicate that there is a middle group of
people constituting the majority on this issue that can create the
change. Change will not come from groups existing on the extremes
of this matter. Historically, there is some reason to believe most
social change has come about through such middle, mainstream groups
coming to consensus. That fact should frame a constructive approach
to mediation. That will be the target audience.
Finally, from my perspective, I need to talk about deception.
In the case of Amendment 2, much of what framed this particular
conflict has been an outrageous display of stereotypes,
distortions, and lies about the gay and lesbian community. No
meaningful dialogue can occur without taking that into account; it
is very difficult to further dialogue when there is an entrenched
position based upon inaccurate information. Often in such
circumstances people have no compelling reason to think otherwise.
All of these dimensions are interconnected and need to be
considered in any kind of constructive approach toward mediation or
resolution of this conflict. Although there is no way to be certain
that this is a conflict that can come to any real resolution, there
may be some aspects of it that may be amenable to mediation, but
here again, we are not talking about the broader social issues. The
places where mediation may be possible is at the very micro, very
local level where there exists disputes between two individual
parties. Mediation or resolution at the state level will not occur
in the near future.
In thinking about what constructive approaches might be
possible, sometimes I may seem quite optimistic and naive about the
actual possibilities. But, it is necessary to state those ideas
even if they may not be truly possible in a real world. First,
before any constructive approach to mediation is possible, we have
to define what is debatable. From a gay and lesbian perspective our
right to exist and our right to full citizenship in this country is
not a matter for debate. For us to even engage in debate with
groups like CFV on that issue is to legitimize the view that
perhaps our right to exist and our citizenship is a matter for
debate. It is not debatable, that is a given. I would suggest that
the gay and lesbian community take a position that says that this
is not debatable. That is part of the intractability of this
conflict because those opposed to gay and lesbian rights think that
our forthright and accurate existence, much less our citizenship,
is much disputed. Defining the debate and defining what is
debatable must be part of any constructive approach.
Also, language must be defined in any constructive approach to
this conflict. Language has played such a powerful, powerful part
of this issue that it can't be overlooked. For example, both sides,
in some context or another, talk about the issue of family or use
the word "family" but no one is really defining what they mean by
that. Does family really mean male, female, and child--that's a
family? Or does family mean the qualitative aspects of relating?
How are we going to define that language? We have the same word
being used on both sides without any real way of getting to what we
are actually talking about. So, when we can get some distinct
definition of what family means we can start talking about what the
important, definitive characteristics of family are.
This issue of language is even more important when the same
accusations are being hurled in both directions. For example, it
would be very easy for me as a lesbian to say, "Oh, describing this
conflict is real simple. It is between those that want to do harm
and those being harmed." Listen carefully to the rhetoric of those
supporting Amendment 2 and you will hear the same thing. They
oppose gay and lesbian rights because their perception is that they
are going to be harmed in some way. What we don't have is a
discussion about what "harm" means and the difference between
perceived harm and actual harm. One of the core deceptive features
of the pro-Amendment 2 argument is that granting gay and lesbian
people their right to exist as full citizens is the same as giving
gay and lesbians license to have sex with children. That is a core
emotional piece of their argument and it can't be disregarded.
There is abundant evidence to demonstrate that this is a falsehood;
but, it is a perceived fear supported by information that has no
basis in reality.
If Amendment 2 is allowed to stand, gay and lesbian people in
this state will not have full participation in our government. It
will be legal to discriminate against us: we can lose our jobs; we
can lose our homes. In turn, we will have no legal recourse in the
court system to make a case on our own behalf. That is actual harm.
There must be a discussion about perceived harms and actual harms
so that we can bring this to a state of reasonable dialogue.
In terms of strategies from a gay and lesbian perspective, I
would love to speak about what I think the other side could do, but
I think that is their responsibility. I can't speak to that, but I
can speak about my views about what the gay and lesbian community
can do. I would again like to say that a lot of my views will not
be shared by everyone in the gay and lesbian community, so these
are thoughts from my own lenses.
The first strategy, as gay and lesbian people, involves the
fact that we have to start speaking our lives. We must start
telling our stories, be out, and be visible. This means being
present both personally and, when we can, publicly. Of course, that
needs to happen only when gay and lesbian people can do so without
severe risk or retribution, because we should not demand of
ourselves that we put ourselves at more risk.
Secondly, and I have been thinking about this aspect since I
went to the Colorado for Family Values seminar, there is especially
a need to start defining common ground. There are some people in
the gay and lesbian community who would suggest that finding common
ground with the CFV types is a matter of selling-out and trying to
make ourselves like them so they will like us. But, I believe that
finding common ground doesn't mean pretending to be like someone.
Finding a shared commonality is absolutely a precondition for any
kind of communication. We have many things in common with the
people who voted "yes" on this Amendment. We have shared pains and
experiences, we are as afraid of job loss as they are, we have all
lost people to death, we all, as humans, have the experience of
what it feels like to ostracized. There ought to be a way that we
can begin to talk about this in some way. We should have some
shared beliefs because we are all American citizens. We should at
least have some shared rhetoric about democracy, about the right to
individual privacy, the right to individual choices, and in some
cases, gay and lesbian people are going to have shared religious
beliefs with those who voted "yes" on the Amendment. We have shared
social concerns about violence and crime and child abuse. At the
CFV seminar a core piece of a film that they showed and a core
piece of their rhetoric was the issue of gay and lesbian sexual
molestation of children. I realized then that we are all very
concerned about the abuse of children. What would happen if we
approached the members of Bethany Church with a plan that would
incorporate gay and lesbian organizations in working with the
church to address child abuse in Boulder? They wouldn't know how to
respond to that. But there has to be some place where we can invite
them to come work with us on a shared social issue.
Lastly, we have to begin to reframe the issues. This entails
the role of the media. We have to start holding the media, and
those in influence, accountable for actual and not stereotypical
portrayals of the issues. For example, the issue of child
molestation is an issue of abuse, it is not an issue of sexual
orientation. Also, there is the issue of the images broadcast from
the San Francisco gay pride march containing what most of us would
call bizarre behavior. But they are no different than heterosexual
behavior during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. This then becomes a
cultural commentary about what we think about in engaging in sexual
relationships. The issue is not about sexual orientation, yet, you
never see those parallels made in the media.
Also, gay and lesbians need to determine if there are some
legitimate criticisms that we need to be willing to look at. For
example, there is an organization that CFV uses in their rhetoric.
This organization is a group of men who engage in child sexual
abuse. Not all gay and lesbian publications allow this group to
advertise in their publications but some do and when gay and
lesbian publications allow that in their publications, we are
implicitly condoning such behavior. That is a legitimate criticism
we need to consider. But, because our community is so diverse we
are not yet at a stage within our own community and development
that we can even begin to talk to each other about that. While some
things are not a matter for debate, we also have to be willing to
examine our actions to see whether or not we are contributing to
the derogatory perspectives about gay and lesbians.
__________________________
[1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Ann
Sebren for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation
Project on April 10, 1993. Ms. Sebren is currently working on a
major revision and extension of this paper, which will be available
from the CRC in a few months. Readers wishing a copy of the
revised version should call or write the Consortium to obtain it
when it is available. Funding for this Project was provided by the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of
Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University,
or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict
Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail:
crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint
without permission.